On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 19:25:59 +0200
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:

> >>>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> 
> > Thanks for the reminder; I looked, and it turns out that we now have
> > a great precedent.
> 
> > Quoting PMS:
> 
> > "The required bash version was retroactively updated from 3.0 to 3.2
> > in November 2009 (see http://www.gentoo.
> > org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20091109.txt)."
> 
> > So we could just retroactively update it again and let people scream
> > if they're actually affected by this.
> 
> If you read the quoted council log, you'll find that the retroactive
> change was done because usage of bash 3.2 features in the tree was
> already widespread at that time. This is very different from the
> current situation, therefore it is not at all a precedent.

The current situation is that you can't even install bash-3.2
systemwide because of the number of packages [ebuilds/eclasses]
requiring on bash-4.

I myself had to prefix-install bash to test my code against it.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny